Stuff

A new YouGov London poll has been released here. Westminster voting intention in London, with changes from March, stand at CON 32%(+1), LAB 51%(+3), LDEM 8%(-1), a slightly bigger swing to Labour than the general GB polls are showing.

However, in the Mayoral race Boris continues to lead, with 48% to Ken’s 41%. The diference is because Liberal Democrat voters break in favour of Boris, and about a fifth of Labour’s Westminster voters would vote for Boris in the mayoral elections.

The figures probably flatter the amount of the vote that both Boris and Ken would get given that other candidates remain unannounced, but it does appears that Boris is maintaining a lead independent of his party.

163 Responses to “YouGov show Boris ahead in London”

@alec. Im sure the labour party probably has the information too, Im only a temporary worker there dealing with post election admin for about 2 weeks. It’s nothing to do with the Conservative Party, its the boundary commission that will make the decisions and thats what they’ve been advised subject to debate. This is natural Conservative territory bar the Julie Morgan effect anyway. I think its all being published in October. Cardiff North boundaries used to be that way a few decades ago, just going back to what they we’re before no scandal about it. 10 seats are going in Wales, one seat going in Cardiff. I think Cardiff Central is going to be axed which is a Lib Dem seat, with Cardiff West taking some of those wards to replace the ones going to Cardiff North. Labour will benefit too, the Tories did win in Cardiff West only 25 or so years ago, if these changes happen Labour will be untouchable in Cardiff West, while labour will still have a chance in Cardiff North.

Off the top of my head Londoners worry about the knock on effect of Tory policies in terms of social cohesion, (the withdrawl of EMA to take just one out of countless examples), regardless of their own personal situation. Consequences become visible more quickly than in smaller cities and rural areas.

Still 11 months to go before the mayoral election, time enough for Labour to consolidate further, and Boris will probably have to distance himself even futher from the government.

London became quite a radical place under the last Consevative government… when the only way to be rid of Ken was to abolish the GLC.

When I say the boundary changes will no doubt benefit the Tories is because of the simple fact, labour can currently win a majority being only 2% ahead of the Conservatives while the Conservatives fell 20 seats short with hang what a 8% lead? Simple fact is Alec, they need to change and they aren’t going to change them to benefit labour when labour are already over represented.

After correction for low turnout in safe Labour seats, there is no bias *whatsoever*. The only reason it seems like there is is because a proportion of voters in safe Labour seats don’t bother to vote, whereas the Tories’ safe seats have very high turnouts. If you scale the number of votes in every seat to give identical turnout, Labour and Tories have an almost identical votes-per-seat.

At the very least this shows that the weighting for London is radically different from that for the country as a whole (normally weighting is to national targets). However the London VI adjustment required in this case (Con -98, Lab +106 for a sample of 1215), contrasts with the combined national VI adjustment for the two daily YouGovs above (Con +30, Lab +125 for the much bigger sample of 5397). It suggests there may be something anomalous in this London poll or possibly in YouGov’s London panel or response.

(b)In these figures London’s voting seems much more socially influenced than the national picture. For ABC1s 38% vote Con, 45% Lab , compared to 41% and 39% nationally. The difference is partly due to a higher Lib Dem vote outside London. The big difference however is in the C2DEs where in London 23% vote Con, 60% Lab compared to 31% and 47% nationally. In London C2DEs seem much less likely to vote for both the Conservatives and Others.

(c)It is notable how the number of Labour Party members – and presumably activists – is proportionately much higher in London than elsewhere. This probably helped them win some seats in 2010 – particularly as urban constituencies will be those where getting out the vote makes the most difference. This may give an extra boost for Labour above VI figures.

For example, the electorate for East Lothian (Westminster constituency is 73,448 which is a tad higher than Daventry with 71,412. (Of course, making a selection at random, I have probably picked the biggest Scottish seat and the smallest English one :-) )

From memory Ken had a confortable lead over Boris at this stage last tome until he was savaged by the Evening Standard.

Also there was a lot of enthusism for Boris last time in Greater London, partculatly in my region of Bromley and Bexley, which probably swung the vote. This was based on promises (unfulfilled) to concentrate more resources in the suburbs (and an anto Ken vote). Whereas there was little enthusiasm for Ken in his inner City.heartland. The tables are likely to be reversed next year as Ken mau be able to convince more working class inner London folk that the vote matters to them, while Boris struggles to match his previous Outer London turnout.

Ken really is a remarkable political.figure. Two terms as head of the GLC, two terms as London mayor, and still polling at 41% overall (and higher no doubt on first preferences).

You are wrong, turnout is one factor, but not the only one. Seat size, vote distribution and the impact of minor parties are all important components too,.

Seats per vote is the wrong way to measure bias anyway – FPTP intrinsically favours the winner and punishes minor parties (it is a feature, not a bug!), so the Conservatives currently gain an advantage from that which cancels out some of the bias against them from other causes. The correct way to look at bias in the system is to see what would happen if both parties had an equal share of the vote, would they get an equal number of seats.

At present Labour would get far more, this partly because of turnout, but even after taking that into account there are also effects from the impact of third parties and, yes, from Labour having smaller seats and over-representation the in Wales.

Having grumbled yesterday about the difficulty of citing the extensive academic work on some of the areas people discuss here, in terms of the bias in the way FPTP currently operates in Britain the relevant stuff is relatively easy to access. Ron Johnston of Bristol University is the man to read – see here for a paper along with Borisyuk, Rallings & Thrasher:

Over recent years Ron has done an excellent job in analysing and breaking down the components of the bias in the system. In this case, in 2010 they reckon the turnout factor gave Labour an advantage of 24 seats over the Conservatives… but seat size also gave an advantage of 13 seats, the impact of minor parties 4 seats and the interaction between these factors a further 14 seats.

Most of the perceived bias in the system is not from disparity in seat size and will not disappear from the boundary review (and neither should it!), BUT it is one significant factor amongst others, so the boundary review should favour the Conservatives to that extent.

Perhaps a better analysis would be to distinguish inner london CDEs from Greater London CFE’s. Say Brent, Camden and Hackney on the former side, and Bromley, Bexley and Havering on the latter. CDEs in the former will be overwhelmingly Labour and in the latter overwhelmingly Conservative. This is deep-seated and will not change.

@AW
Disagree with you on bias. The only clear bias is seat size (by electoral register). Taking other factors into account is a little spurrious, partcularly in FPTP.

Surely it’s not just Wales that has too many MP’s, so does Scotland on the basis that they have their own parliament (soon to get more powers) & the MSP’s do most of the day to day work. What do the Scottish Westminster MP’s actually do, with only 50% of the workload of an English MP?

I am a Unionist but hard to swallow when you know rid ourselves of Scotland and Wales we will be Conservative for nearly ever ( Northern Ireland will always be English leaning).That being said we must fight for the Union,if they decide to leave so be it, but I think it would be a massive mistake for them.

Sorry,main point was that Boris is a Conservative,but refreshingly not strictly tied to party lines and more often than not speaks the words of the electorate. Yes maybe ( too often ?) he puts his foot in it but is that not a refreshing change ?

“Surely it’s not just Wales that has too many MP’s, so does Scotland on the basis that they have their own parliament (soon to get more powers) & the MSP’s do most of the day to day work. What do the Scottish Westminster MP’s actually do, with only 50% of the workload of an English MP?”

I think you are asking the wrong question. On all those UK matters which affect Scotland that are handled by the Westminster Parliament, it would be wholly unjustifiable to reduce the number of Scots MPs. You may remember the failed “No Taxation without Representation” model that resulted in a successful independence campaign elsewhere?

Those of you who wish to retain something along the lines of the current UK Union need to come up with a solution to the “English Question”.

Why should expenditure in Wales, Scotland & NI be decided on the basis of what the UK (rather randomly) decides to label as English expenditure?

The current system of a UK Parliament which doubles up as the English Parliament doesn’t really work for anyone.

There are a myriad of different possible models ranging from each/some of the nations of the UK becoming independent to a more symmetrical devolved system – Federal or Confederal depending on whether power should be top down or bottom up.

If MP workload concerns you, then let each of the constituent parts of the UK decide on how to select/elect their representatives to whatever UK Parliamentary function still exists.

Tinkering about with the number of MPs from devolved nations is an answer to nothing.

The correct way to look at bias in the system is to see what would happen if both parties had an equal share of the vote, would they get an equal number of seats.
——————————————————-
? That doesn’t make sense without assuming e.g. in which seats the Tory share of the vote would be. Therefore, it’s not fact – it’s opinion based on assumptions. Somebody else – with different but potentially just as valid assumptions – could reach a different conclusion, no?

And isn’t that what Robin’s authority on this issue has done? Looked at the same scenario using different – but possibly valid assumptions – to reach an opinion.
8-)

If DC wins in 2015 then they will have gone 23 years between outright victories. In 1997 Labour had not won an election since 1974 – a period of….23 years..

The UK is never going to go permanently Labour or permanently Tory. There will always be ebb & flow but unless Labour find a Blair mk2 or Cameron messes up, then it might be another 22 years before the next Labour victory.

I think the 8% Lab supporters who will vote for Boris (or who are currently saying they will vote for him) demonstrate how unstable a lot of the VI numbers are, these people are hardly die hard Lab supporters.

I would be very interested to know how much of our regular VI numbers are in fact very flexible, floating, and non-tribal voters (voting different ways in diffferent elections).

Oldnat
I can but agree with the thrust of your post. The only answer in my view is an English parliament for England but then a confederation overall.
However, I fear that will never happen. The proud national identity that exists in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France & virtually every other country in the world, simply does not exist in England. The English by & large nowadays, couldn’t give a b…gger. What happened?

@Raf – “Two terms as head of the GLC, two terms as London mayor, and still polling at 41%…..”

Does he have a cat as well?

@Robert Newark – “If DC wins in 2015 then they will have gone 23 years between outright victories. In 1997 Labour had not won an election since 1974 – a period of….23 years..”

Absolutely, and I was very clear that I wasn’t discounting this possibility. However, my point was that I don’t ever recall seeing such a geographical division where one of the major parties is so far from winning seats in such large areas.

Things could really turn round for Cameron and he could sweep the board in all those no go areas. However, that would be very different to the New Labour experience when 1997 was the high water mark and there was a slow decline after that.

Under any realistic view of politics, 2010 really should have been the Tories 1997, with an awful PM, desperate economic situation and a third term government so clearly out of steam. Just why couldn’t they win in these places, and what on earth must they do amongst all the cuts and austerity to win next time round?

I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with vote distribution, impact of third parties, turnout, etc contributing to different parties getting different numbers of seats, and definitely not suggesting that boundary commissions should take it into account or try and cancel things out.

I’m merely saying that these things are some of the reasons why Labour would get more seats than the Conservatives on equal votes.

“The proud national identity that exists in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France & virtually every other country in the world, simply does not exist in England.”

I’m sure that’s not true. I’ve been glad to see the English flag flying in many places when I’ve visited. Your reclamation of that from the far right has been important.

At the same time, one has to recognise the value of someone like Amber feeling genuinely British. It’s one of these few aspects of politics which is a zero sum game. if I win, she loses and vice versa. That’s a tragedy for one of us! :-)

England, I think, just hasn’t yet come to terms with the issue. Ignoring the posturing and blustering on blogs, it seems to me that those in England still haven’t come to terms with the concept that the UK is not a unitary state (actually it never was, but those in England knew little about those differences).

That does raise an interesting confederal solution for Eire, NI, IoM, Wales and Scotland. We each run our own affairs, but the co-ordinating Parliament for foreign affairs and a minimal Defence Force could sit in Belfast or Douglas.

The rise of parties like the SNP has altered UK politics more than we might think.

With the Lib Dems disappearing, we are heading back to 2 party politics, however, the “others” are still great enough to deny both parties of a majority. There seems to be tribal lines being drawn across the UK,

For example, Labour is not welcome in South East, South West or East of England, and the tories are not welcome in Scotland, the North or Yorkshire possibly London going that way as well. Maybe London will be the region that swings it in future, a good bellweather. For example, there doing badly in London at the moment with all the cuts and protests, but when the economy picks up, I’m sure we’ll see numbers in London improve.

Also it’s important to look at immigration, Most immigrants migrate to areas the Tories are already unpopular, places like Birmingham and cities in the North.

BUT, there are floods of immigrants going into London, with some London boroughs now becoming Majority black boroughs, and London has a whole having 30% blacks far higher than the national average. Could this demographic change be the factor that is causing the Conservatives to lose more and more of London every day?

” On all those UK matters which affect Scotland that are handled by the Westminster Parliament, it would be wholly unjustifiable to reduce the number of Scots MPs. You may remember the failed “No Taxation without Representation” model that resulted in a successful independence campaign elsewhere?”

Sorry but just can’t let you get away with such an illogical statement.

For GE 2010 purposes Scotland had an electorate of 3,864,768 of which 2,465,722 voted (63.8% turnout). Scotland has 59 MPs which works out at 65,505 electors per MP. This compares with England where the electorate was 38,235,931 of which 25,085,097 voted (65.6%). England has 533 MPs which works out at 71,737 electors per seat.

Given the number of electors (UK – NI) for the 632 (UK – NI), the average number of electors per seat should be 70190.
On this average figure the number of seats for Scotland should only be 55.

Thus Scotland is over-represented by 4 seats. Thus it is the English that can undoubtedly claim to be closest to the phrase ‘No Taxation without Representation’. Scotland, Wales and especially NI are all over represented in the UK Parliament on the current allocation of seats compared to their regional totals of electors. Note I have used electors, not those that actually voted. Those electors that actually decide to voted may choose the MP’s party, but it is the size of the electorate that decides the total of MPs entitlement for each region.

English MPs not only have to cover those issues covered by Scottish MPs at Westminster, but also those issues dealt with by SMPs at Hollyrood. Thus the workload of Scottish MPs at Westminster is far less that their English counterparts. In which case logically it is the English MPs numbers which should be increased to even out the workload.

Thus it is your comment is unjustified by the facts and your argument completely the opposite to logically reasoning.

Just to add to the point if you look at the situation with not 632 seats (UK-NI), but the 584 (600 – 18 UK -NI) reduced parliament, it works out as follows:

Average Electors/seat rises from 70190 to 75884. The entitlement for the Scoland electorate of 3,864,768 falls to 51 seats from its current holding of 59. It is actually less than 51 but the Outer Hebrides special situation brings it up to 51.

If we are over represented by 4 MPs, then I’m happy to see that number reduced – actually that will happen anyway, although the nonsense (in UK terms) of protected status for Na h’Eeilanan an Iar and O&S will continue. and I don’t support that.

Of course, I actually want Scots MPs at Westminster reduced to zero, once Westminster no longer legislates for Scotland. in the meantime, however, there is no justification for reducing the number of MPs from Scotland below its population share, which is what I was arguing against.

If England no longer wants a Union that’s fine by me. If they do, then the structure needs to be satisfactory to all of the parties concerned. What’s so difficult about that?

@Oldnat
@Neil A
“I assumed that England wouldn’t want to play. In any case, why would anyone in a confederal structure want the confederal parliament to be tucked away in a remote part of one of the constituents?

if England wants to make a bid for the confederal parliament location, then I’d suggest that you put forward Liverpool as the nominee.”

If you consider the total combined electorates of Scotland, NE, NW, York, W Mid and E Mid then they are roughly equal to the combined electorates of East, SE, SW and London. So somewhere between the two groups would seem more logical. I think ‘Watford Gap’ has been used in the past!!

Liverpool is far to North to be central to the bulk of the electorate. Mind you, have you ever been to Watford?

*Smiles smug grin at the chance to chastise Oldnat on his ignorance of his neighbouring country for a change*

Watford is in Hertfordshire.

Watford Gap, however, is in Northamptonshire, many miles to the north of its grim, concrete namesake.

Ironically, I was contemplating just the other day the concept of an “enduring solution” to the political divisions in the British isles, based on a united Ireland, independent Scotland, Wales and England forming a loose confederal United Kingdom with a bespoke capital on Merseyside. Liverpool seemed an ideal location, given her Irish connections, strong links to (North) Wales, reasonable transport links to Glasgow and general need of “something big” to happen to shake off her post-Imperial malaise and give her some of her old 19th century swagger back. I had even conjured up some concepts for the new parliament building…

Pure fantasy of course, but it’s interesting how some of the same thoughts can circulate in different brains so far apart.

You were actually implying that reducing the number of MPs to represent Scotland was akin to being under represented. (Tea Party and all that stuff.) You then implied that because Scotland’s MPs still have a workload for the topics still controlled by Westminster, they should have greater representation to deal with that workload. I was merely pointing out that the very reverse was logical deduction from not having the same workload of issues as their English equivalents.

I personally am happy that the representation from Scotland is rounded upwards to take into account the ‘islands situation’ in the same way as the ‘Isle of Wight’ may become a special case. As you say, these electors/seat anomalies (not voters/seat and not current MP’s party etc) is what is the basis for the Boundaries Commission considerations. Getting a fairer allocation of seats per region based upon the elector’s size and then a more equal electors per seat distribution within regions will sort out so-called electoral bias. Of course if Scotland becomes fully independant then they should have no MPs at Westminster. In that we both agree.

If there is a Federal system, then Scotland’s representation in any Federal Parliament should be approximately 8.7% of any federal seats, which is commensurate with their proportion of the (UK -NI) electorate.

Watford is firmly in East Region, Northampton is firmly in East Midlands. Is there somewhere inbetween? Can’t be too obscure otherwise it will give them too many chances to claim travel and accomodation expenses. Got to be within riding distance of Buckingham Palace as well!

Can’t go with that Liverpool idea. Just give them an excuse for yet another cathedral and they already have ‘one to spare’.

I am happy to admit ignorance about the differences between Watford and it’s Gap, but also glad to be corrected. :-) Education is a great thing and continues life long.

I think I may have misrepresented my position, judging by your response.

To clarify, as long as the UK Parliament legislates on issues that affect Scotland (directly or indirectly – due to the nonsense of Barnett as opposed to fiscal autonomy) then the number of MPs from Scotland voting on such issues needs to be pro rata to population.

Quite how England then works out how it is governed is a matter for them, although it is clearly unsustainable for the UK (simultaneously acting as the the English) Government to classify the Olympics as a UK rather than an English event, to the net loss of Scotland.

“It seems bizarre to me that London Labour actually chose Ken when other fresher candidates were available. They may pay for that decision by losing the mayoral election from a position of relative party strength in London.”

Yeah, that’s what I wondered too. But you know, I come from a party with a proud tradition of nominating people who are just completely unelectable (and sometimes have lost numerous times for the same office) so I’m no one to judge.

“And there was me thinking that the South East of England was a Labour desert land populated almost exclusively by God fearing, law abiding, royalty loving, Euro hating, blue blooded Englishmen of the noblest and finest sort!”

Ah, folks like you! :)

“So, what are we to make of the fact that 51% of the population of our vast capital, nestling as it does in the warm bosom and very heartland of the Tory fiefdom that is South East England, now appear to be saying that they would vote Labour if there was a General Election tomorrow? Is the “sea of blue” on our electoral map a little misleading, perhaps? Maybe we should focus a little more on where people actually live in vaguely appreciable numbers before we caricature the political composition of our regions! lol”

Well not if you could just draw the districts all by equal physical size! I mean, then the colors on the map would be the best reflection! Just ask any high school Republican in America. :)